August 8, 2016

Why Hillary Is a Safe Bet for India

The following article originally appeared in India Today on August 8 and was reproduced on the Brookings Institution's Order from Chaos blog.

The field is set. With the formal anointing of party
nominees at the Republican and Democratic Party conventions in July, either
Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is certain to be the next U.S. president. This
match-up is remarkable for several reasons. Trump would be the first U.S.
leader in over a half century not to have previously held elected office.
Clinton would be the first female president. Both are among the most divisive
candidates in recent history, with high negative ratings-even within their own
parties.

What does the outcome of November’s election mean for
India? The degree of comfort in working-level relations between the two
governments and militaries, the presence of the Indian-American community, and
several areas of natural economic and strategic convergence mean that the
foundations of the India-U.S. relationship are today strong enough to withstand
any leadership change in either country. In that sense, a presidential
transition in Washington will have only a limited effect on bilateral ties. But
while the implications for bilateral relations would be marginal, the potential
impact on the United States’ credibility and ability to wield international
influence will be tremendous.

Hillary Clinton would be a very safe bet from India’s
point of view. No incoming U.S. president has had the level of interaction with
India that she has had. Her trip in 1995 helped paved the way years later for
her husband Bill Clinton’s historic visit to India in 2000. As U.S. Senator,
Hillary Clinton was co-chair of the Senate India Caucus. And as U.S. Secretary
of State she made multiple visits, during which she highlighted the need for
India to “not just look east, but engage east and act east”—a mantra the
current Indian government subsequently adopted—and surprised many with her
sharp rhetoric against Pakistan-supported terrorism.

In fact, political opponents have tried to use Clinton’s
close India connections to attack her. In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama had
to apologize for a campaign memo that described Clinton as a senator from
Punjab. More recently, the Trump campaign has published and circulated
unsubstantiated allegations that Clinton received money from India for her
support for the India-U.S. nuclear agreement. Overall, Clinton’s foreign policy
and trade instincts—although dampened during the campaign in response to
adverse popular sentiments—are in accordance with broad Indian preferences.
From her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s group of advisers—the
likes of her campaign chairman John Podesta, former Under Secretary of State
Wendy Sherman, her closest foreign policy aide Jake Sullivan, and dozens
more—are all individuals with a close working familiarity with India.

What about Trump? Unlike Clinton, he does not have a
record to assess and his statements on the campaign trail have offered a
contradictory picture. One statement that received considerable attention in
India related to Pakistan. “Pakistan is semi-unstable. We have a little bit of
a good relationship. I think I’d try and keep it,” Trump said at a town hall
meeting in April. “If you look at India and some of the others, maybe they’ll
be helping us out.” While interpreted by some in India as a signal that he would
side with India against Pakistan, his remarks are actually ambiguous on that
account, and largely conform to the United States’ recent approach to the
region.

Trump has also been similarly ambivalent about economic
relations and immigration as it relates to India. “India is doing great. Nobody
talks about it,” he told CNN in January, but added a month later that he was
going to “bring back jobs from India.” He often speaks of India along with
China with admiration, but also as a threat to the United States’ economic
well-being. On immigration, Trump has spoken about ending the H-1B high-skilled
visa program of which Indians are among the biggest beneficiaries, but has also
said he would create opportunities for Indian entrepreneurs and students. “They
go to Harvard, they are first in their class and they’re from India, they go
back to India and they set up companies and they make a fortune and they employ
lots of people,” he told Fox News in March. “We need those people in the
country.”

Indian-Americans, historically Democrats, are likely to
support Clinton overwhelmingly. The racism associated with the Trump campaign
will deter some Indian votes that might otherwise have gone to a Republican
candidate. However, the vast majority of people in India appear to be undecided
about the two candidates. A poll by the Pew Research Center released in June
found 28 percent of Indians had confidence in Hillary Clinton’s ability to
handle world affairs while 16 percent did not. Meanwhile, only 14 percent had
confidence in Trump in contrast to 18 percent who did not.

The Indian government has been following political
developments in the U.S. closely. But it has wisely chosen not to take sides.
While Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Hillary Clinton (and other
presidential aspirants such as Republican Chris Christie and Democrat Martin
O’Malley) during his 2014 visit to the United States, he opted not to meet
formally with either campaign during his last visit earlier this year. However,
in an engagement with think-tank leaders in Washington, Modi met with
individuals close to both campaigns. The election of a U.S. president is
ultimately up to the American electorate, and India will have to deal
confidently with whoever comes to power next.